Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
enegue said:In regard to Adam and Eve, the only thing God *couldn't* provide for them in the garden, was the choice to be there. While they remained in the garden they were captive to God's goodness and love and provision. There was no opportunity to *choose him*, because choice requires options, and he was the only option.
Expelling man from the garden was an act of love in that it was the necessary completion to God's provision, and it was the only means of allowing real freedom to choose.
This whole elaborate creation has been for the purpose of providing his creatures with a means of *choosing him*. Yes. God chose us first, but in the garden there was no way to *choose him* back.
msortwell said:If your construct were true, and it is not, it would be much ado about nothing, since this highly esteemed opportunity and arbitrary freedom to choose differently will be removed when believers are in glory.
You may want to circulate a petition when you get to heaven. Perhaps God will give you the opportunity to leave.
Blessings,
Mike
depthdeception said:So who is the debt owed to? Satan? If this is so, then God is ultimately evil. After all, the conditions of paying the debt would have been set by Satan (if it was to him that the debt was truly owed) and God would have had to fulfill the conditions of the debt in order to pay it. However, by acheiving atonement on the level of Satan's conditions, God would be showing that the acts and intentions of Satan are ultimately right, as God would be willing to satisfy Satan on the basis of the terms of sin and evil.
Somehow I doubt that you would truly wish to say this...
Who required it? God? It can't be, as you've just said that it was not to God that the debt was owed. Therefore, was it Satan that required the sacrifice? Again, if this is so, God is complicit in the evil of Satan for God acheives atonement along the terms of the Evil One.
Nobody "owned" me. Sin and righteousness are about relationship, not "ownership."
Okay. If this is so, then God is as bad as Satan, for it was on Satan's terms that God acheived the salvation of humanity. In this case, we are not really saved; we've only been transferred to someone who is more evil and violent than Satan.
Again, if Satan's claim was legitimate, then God has used the terms of evil and violence to acheive an illusory "salvation" for humanity. However, we are not actually saved if this is the case, only slaves of a greater and more powerful evil being than Satan.
These issues are irrelevant.
It does clarify your position. However, I do not think it is biblical or theologically tenable.
The point made by the post to which I was responding was that a major aspect of the freedom from which Adam and Eve were deprived was the freedom to decide for themselves whether or not to remain in paradise.depthdeception said:If there can be no excersizing of the will in heaven, then there is no potential that we can be in relationship with God, which, I assume, is the entire point of heaven.
"God is love". This the fundamental approach we need to adopt when approaching scripture. These little gems simply give us opportunity to evaluate what we really think of God, and they challenged us to put our cards on the table.stabalizer said:Scripture says God created evil; (Isa. 45:5-7) Now what? Shall we find fault with God.?
msortwell said:NO! It it simple, but not THAT simple. Some people buy M&M's because at the time the were presented with the opportunity to purchase one or the other they desired one more than the other. Their will is not an arbitrary device which operates independent of influence.
They were, because of past experience, knowledge, etc., inclined to purchase one instead of the other.
This is the Calvinistic understanding of the exercise of the will. The HUMAN WILL is ALWAYS FREE to CHOOSE WHAT IT DESIRES. It is never free to choose what it does not desire. That would be an absurdity.
The choice is not honoured. It is the promise - the Covenant - of God that is honoured.
Blessings,
Mike
enegue said:Hi msortwell,
I don't think you have given it enough thought.
enegue said:This creation was established as the place of conflict and turmoil and doubt and questioning and choosing. The opportunity to choose differently won't be removed in heaven, it just won't be necessary because every person in this life will have already expressed their desire to be there. Other things will be a matter of choice in heaven:
enegue said:There will be no need for a petition, because it will have already been signed. God himself will have added our names to the scroll, and everyone who has come to God through faith in Jesus Christ will be among the number.
Please read the posts again, Mike. You have *totally* misunderstood what the choosing is all about.The point made by the post to which I was responding was that a major aspect of the freedom from which Adam and Eve were deprived was the freedom to decide for themselves whether or not to remain in paradise.
BBAS 64 said:Good Day, Stabalizer
Peanut M&M's are not a choice for some as they cannot eat peanuts lest they die..
They are constrained by things they do not control, thus their will is not "free", but they freely choose to not eat them.
Nothing more nothing less .. leaves one with nothing.
By what means does one leave the sin they love a cling to a God they hate???
Peace to u,
Bill
Really, Mike. *Paradise* was created perfect and good, but man was expelled from paradise. Where we currently are is only perfect for the purpose for which it was established - an arena for conflict and turmoil and doubt and questioning and choosing.No. This creation was established as a paradise - which was "very good."
stabalizer said:Why do some people buy M&M's plain and some buy the one's with peanuts.? Or why do some like to eat the green one's and some choose blue? or red?
Free will!
it's just that simple. nothing more, nothing less
(It's a choice)! That God honors;
Please read Rev 22:11 & 12
Edial said:In what manner?
Christ said that he will call all men to himself after the resurrection, after he received all the authority.
I am not certain what the question is.
Not really. A man must receive him.
Edial said:I pointed to James and "shifting shadows", where it states that God does not change as the shifting shadows. Relationship is different from the character or essense.
Ed
depthdeception said:I agree that the Atonement creates surety for those who believe. However, unlike you, I do not believe that the atonement necessarily compels those who are elected to believe, to believe.
Therefore, while it is a surety for those who believe, the atonement creates the possibility that belief is salvific.
If Christ endures the "punishment" for human sin from God, humanity is not being reconciled to God. Rather, Christ--by being punished--is changing God's mind concerning God's designs to "punish" humanity. In this sense, then, God is the one being reconciled, not humanity.
Forgiveness requires no conditions upon which it becoes "fitting." Rather, the very nature of forgiveness is that it is given without condition. A forgiveness "earned" or "merited" is not forgiveness.
What, the "good news" that Christ did not desire to reconcile some to God? How is that "good news?"
No, Christ purposed to reconcile all of creation to God. However, as reconciliation is ultimate a relational reality that requires reciprocity, it is perfectly obvious that not all will be reconciled, even though all are forgiven (the foundation for reconciliation).
The kind of "reconciliation" which Calvinism espouses is not reconciliation at all, as it is compelled on the basis of the gift of forgiveness, and not a response to it.
"Demanded?" No, the nature of God's righteousness and love is that God became human in order to reconcile humanity to Godself, doing for humanity--on behalf of humanity--that which humanity could not do for itself.
However, this "righteousness" is not satisfied in the supposed "punishment" of Christ, but rather in the relational fidelity which Christ exhibited to the Father in confronting the sinfulness of humanity and violent forces of evil in the world. God's response to "transgression" is always that of love, of an attempt to reconcile the offending party, not punishment. Punishment is the consequences which sinful humanity naturally experiences when they refuse the loving overtures of God in history through Christ.
No, justice does not demand recompense. This is the problem with the Church. There is no punishment that God could expend upon humanity that would be equal to the offense. Therefore, to punish humanity simply to satisfy "justice" would be irrelevant, as God would gain nothing by punishing, nor lose anything by not punishing. The hope of salvation is that God is merciful and has sacrificed all in order to reconcile humanity to Godself.
But in penal substitutionary theory, the "punishment" of Christ is not the full embodiment of God's purpose to save humanity as God's desire is to actually destroy humanity in order to satisfy "divine justice" (which God supposedly is more concerned about than anything else).
Rather, Christ is presented as doing that which God was not willing to do, i.e., forgive humanity of its sins. Therefore, one can only conclude that in his death and supposed "punishment" by God, Christ is changing God's attitude toward humanity (which, as penal substitutionary atonement presumes, was to destroy humanity), not representing God's desire for humanity.
nobdysfool said:Calvinists do not say that the Atonement compels the Elect to believe. Show me a Calvinist who said that. Your information is faulty. The Atonment was and is that satisfaction of the Wrath of God against sin and the practice of it. As such biblically it is a penal, substitutionary atonement, the perfect for the imperfect, in order that the imperfect may be made perfect. I know you reject the idea, but you do so to your own peril.
Oh, man, are you off base! Christ IS God. What you're saying is that Christ has to change the mind of the Father, as though there were a division and discord in the Trinity! What utter foolishness!
And where in the bible do you find this definition for forgiveness? I agree that we do not earn or merit God's forgiveness, but that doesn't mean that forgiveness is without condition. The condition is the Atonement. God cannot just forgive sin without reason, without violating His own Holiness. To do so would mean that he no longer cares about sin, that sin would no longer prevent man from approaching God, which is preposterous, because God does not change. Sin and sinners cannot stand in the presence of a Holy God, because their sin will cause them to be consumed.
Once again, arguing that man has a part to to play in his salvation, something to contribute, because of faulty definition of love, and the belief that relationship is what God is after. Whether or not you admit to it, your theology is at its core Arminian, which is a form of semi-Pelagianism. You overlay it with philosophy and physchology, but it's root is to deny the scriptures regarding man's true condition, God's purpose, and to set man up as the ultimate determiner of his own salvation.
Biblical support for this, please!
Justice is a recognition of transgression, and the reality that it must be redressed. The books must balance, so to speak. You're just playing word games. Christ satisfied the Justice of God against sin, by paying the penalty due, i.e. that of death. Those who are in Christ are counted as having died, and therefore having paid the penalty, with the important difference that they, in Christ, survive their death, as did Christ, by virtue of His diety and perfection. Every man outside of Christ will pay for his own sins, but he will not survive the payment.
There again, you postulate a division in the Trinity, a disagreement between the Father and the Son. That is not possible. The Father and Son covenanted together before Creation to redeem those chosen by the Father and given to the Son, whom the Son would redeem to be God's own people and possession, and the Bride of Christ. There was no disagreement. Christ is not "changing God's Attitude" toward humanity, such an idea is preposterous.
You show that you have no understanding of Reformed Theology, or of the constituent doctrines basic to orthodox, biblical Christianity.
Reformationist said:Do you even think before you post? "Free will" isn't the reason why you choose the way you choose. It's the reason you are able to choose the way you choose. Care to answer the question again, maybe this time, actually answer the question? (this is rubbish)
Well, I certainly hope there's more to your defense of your position that to regurgigate the battle cry of those who credit themselves with contributing just as essential an element to their personal salvation as did the Lord Jesus.
(So faith isn't cooperative?)
God bless
enegue said:"God is love". This the fundamental approach we need to adopt when approaching scripture. These little gems simply give us opportunity to evaluate what we really think of God, and they challenged us to put our cards on the table.
Firstly, the meaning of the word evil is to be understood as the opposite of peace, and nothing more. "I make peace and create evil." The statement presents opposite ends of a spectrum. If peace is at one end, what is at the other? Turmoil. So the simplest, most uncomplicated understanding of what God is saying here is, "I make peace and create turmoil."
Secondly, we have to weigh what this verse is saying against information gathered from other parts of scripture that give us a clearer understanding of the text. What does the following text teach about how God operates?And the anger of the LORD was hot against Israel, and he delivered them into the hands of spoilers that spoiled them, and he sold them into the hands of their enemies round about, so that they could not any longer stand before their enemies. Whithersoever they went out, the hand of the LORD was against them for evil, as the LORD had said, and as the LORD had sworn unto them: and they were greatly distressed.When the text says, "he delivered them into the hands of spoilers" and "he sold them into the hands of their enemies round about" and "the hand of the LORD was against them for evil", what had God actually done? Did he go to the kings of the surrounding nations and whisper in their ear how they could bring Israel down? Did he provide them with weapons and horses and the other resources needed to overtake Israel? The answer is, no. They already possessed such things. The only reason they hadn't already overtaken Israel was that God had extended his protective hand to keep them at bay and prevent them from consuming his vulnerable little nation.
-- Judges 2:14
The peace that God creates is achieved by providing the protection of his stong arm and mighty hand, and the evil/turmoil/calamity that he creates is achieved by withdrawing that protection. Why would he do this? Because Israel was a disobedient and rebellious child, and the time had come to smack his bottom, "as the LORD had said, and as the LORD had sworn unto them:"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.Every time we express an opinion about something that the bible says, the thoughts and intents of the heart are exposed for all to see.
-- Hebrews 4:12.
Cheers,
enegue
depthdeception said:Yes, I perfectly realize that Calvinists do not "say" this. However, it is the logical conclusion of the Calvinistic conception of election, predesitination, and God's sovereignty. After all, if all those for whom Christ is supposed to have died (which is not all, but only the elect) are necessarily saved (for it would catastrophic to presume that Christ has failed in any way), then there must be something that guarantees that all those for whom Christ has died are saved. As Calvinists foam at the mouth of any conception of personal responsibility in the area of salvation for the human, the conclusion must be that God compels or effects--whatever word or phrase one wishes to use--the salvation of those for whom Christ is supposed to have exclusively provided atonement.
To my own peril in what way? I have been reconciled to God through Christ and the Spirit testifies with mine that I am child of God. What peril is there in viewing atonement and salvation as what it actually is--the restoration of relationship between humanity and God? The peril is fabricated.
Yes, and this is exactly why penal substitutionary atonement should be rejected, precisely because it does create a division and discord in the Trinitarian relationship. I am not the one who believes that Christ and God are at odds. However, as penal substitutionary atonement theology necessarily concludes that what Christ does on the cross changes God's mind and attitude towards humanity (something that God was not willing to do until Christ did something which was not naturally within the will of God--at least as psa assumes), it creates a break between the will of God and that of Christ.
Rather, Christ's death at the hands of sinful humanity and his subsequent vindication by God in his resurrection creates the propriety of God's forgiving humanity, as God--through the work of Christ that God makes God's own--becomes the ultimate "victim" of sin. As the ultimate victim of sin, God is able to expend forgiveness to all who are in need of forgiveness.
However, if this is so, Christ's act of forgiveness on the cross cannot accurately be proper to the work of the Godhead, as God was not willing to forgive without Christ's death.
stabalizer said:Well, first of all you're entitled to your opinions. It's ok to agree to disagree.
I don't think Satan set the conditions of the debt. That doesnt mean he didn't obtain or possess legal claim over mankind. (fallen) Even if the claim was obtained thru deceit.
God has and had to have a body in order to shed blood. (the life is in the blood) I don't fully understand all the requirements necessary to have blotted out the handwriting of the ordinances that were against us. Without the shedding of blood there is no remission! (Who's the accuser of the brethren?)
I do understand Jesus took my place. (physically and legally)
As far as the evil and violence of it all; yes, crucifiction is an evil, violent and ugly work. scripture says He, (Jesus) endured the cross, dispising the shame of it.
That didn't make him evil for allowing it. (to endure means to pass thru without change, as in; to enter then exit.)
When one belongs to a kingdom they are without question the property of the king of that kingdom. God is not a democracy.
We all belong to one kingdom or the other, scruipture says so.
Scripture says God created evil; (Isa. 45:5-7) Now what? Shall we find fault with God.?
You don't know my position nor should you take it upon yourself to presume anything about me. A bit out of order seeing you're not my God. Kinda arrogant of you.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?